The validity of progression-free survival (PFS) 2 as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced solid tumors.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1516-1516
Author(s):  
Rachel Woodford ◽  
Deborah Zhou ◽  
Peey-Sei Kok ◽  
Sally Lord ◽  
Ian Marschner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Investigational Agents ◽  
Tumor Types

1516 Background: OS is the gold-standard endpoint for treatment efficacy in oncology RCTs. However, prolonged follow-up is required to obtain mature data, which impedes regulatory approval of potentially beneficial therapies. Furthermore, increasing therapeutic options including cross over to investigational agents at disease progression often confound OS findings. PFS-2, defined as time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy, has been proposed as a potential surrogate endpoint for OS. Using a meta-analytic approach, we aimed to assess the association between OS and PFS-2, and its validity compared with other surrogate endpoints. Methods: We performed an electronic literature search to identify RCTs of systemic therapies that reported PFS-2 as a pre-specified endpoint with defined follow up protocols. Articles were screened for eligibility and outcome data were extracted. Correlations in the relative treatment difference between treatment arms for OS vs PFS-2, PFS-1, and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed as the comparison of hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratio (OR) respectively. Results: 38 eligible RCTs comprising of 44 analysis units, with 19,031 patients across 8 unique tumor types were identified. The majority received targeted therapies (72.2%), followed by immunotherapy (IO; 26.3%). The correlations of HR-OS/HR-PFS-2, HR-OS/HR-PFS-1 and HR-OS/OR-ORR were r = 0.67 (95% CI 0.08-0.69), r = 0.12 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) and r = 0.21 (95% CI 0.00-0.33) respectively. Correlations between OS with surrogates was assessed in different subgroups according to post-progression survival times (SPP), types of treatment agents and rate of subsequent therapy after progression (table). Conclusions: Across diverse tumors and therapies, treatment effect on PFS-2 has modest to strong correlation with OS, but poor correlations were observed between OS-PFS-1 and OS-ORR respectively. Across all subgroups, PFS-2 performs consistently better than traditional surrogates of PFS-1 and ORR, validating and providing support for use in future RCTs.[Table: see text]

Subgroup analysis from JAVELIN Renal 101: Outcomes for avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 544-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Matthew T. Campbell ◽  
Boris Y. Alekseev ◽  
Motohide Uemura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive

544 Background: In the ongoing phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, progression-free survival (PFS) was longer (median, 13.8 vs 8.4 mo; hazard ratio, 0.69; p=0.0001) and the objective response rate (ORR) was higher (51% vs 26%) with A + Ax vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. Here we report outcomes from an analysis of several prespecified subgroups. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A (10 mg/kg) IV every 2 weeks + Ax (5 mg) PO twice daily or S (50 mg) PO once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Primary and key secondary endpoints were PFS per independent review committee (IRC; RECIST v1.1) and OS in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (≥1% of immune cells) and in patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression; other secondary endpoints included OR per IRC (RECIST v1.1). Results: A total of 886 patients were randomized; 560 (63%) had PD-L1+ tumors. At data cut-off (Jun 2018), median follow-up was 12.0 vs 11.5 mo for A + Ax vs S groups. The table shows PFS and ORR by MSKCC and IMDC risk groups (F, favorable; I, intermediate; P, poor) and PD-L1 subgroup. Similar results for prognostic risk were seen in patients with PD-L1+ tumors. Outcome data (including PFS2) for additional clinical subgroups by baseline demographics and features will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006. Conclusions: A + Ax demonstrated PFS and OR benefit across all prognostic risk groups and PD-L1 subgroups vs S in aRCC.[Table: see text]

Measurable Residual Disease Does Not Preclude Prolonged Progression-free Survival in CLL Treated with Ibrutinib

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Wang ◽  
Curtis A. Hanson ◽  
Renee Tschumper ◽  
Connie Lesnick ◽  
Esteban Braggio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Additional Support ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Measurable Residual Disease

E1912 was a randomized phase 3 trial comparing indefinite ibrutinib plus six cycles of rituximab (IR) to six cycles of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) in untreated younger patients with CLL. We describe measurable residual disease (MRD) levels in E1912 over time and correlate them with clinical outcome. Undetectable MRD rates (< 1 CLL cell per 104 leukocytes) were 29.1%, 30.3%, 23.4% and 8.6% at 3, 12, 24 and 36 months for FCR, and significantly lower at 7.9%, 4.2% and 3.7% at 12, 24 and 36 months for IR, respectively. Undetectable MRD at 3, 12, 24 and 36 months was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) for the FCR arm with hazard ratios (MRD detectable / MRD undetectable) of 4.29 (95% CI 1.89 - 9.71), 3.91 (95% CI 1.39 - 11.03), 14.12 (95% CI 1.78 - 111.73), and not estimable (no events among those with undetectable MRD), respectively. For the IR arm, patients with detectable MRD did not have significantly worse PFS compared to those in whom MRD was undetectable; however, PFS was longer for those with MRD levels of less than 10-1 compared to those with MRD levels above this threshold. Our observations provide additional support for the use of MRD as a surrogate endpoint for PFS in patients receiving FCR. For patients on indefinite ibrutinib-based therapy, PFS did not differ significantly by undetectable MRD status, while those with MRD less than 10-1 tend to have longer PFS, although continuation of ibrutinib is very likely required to maintain treatment efficacy.

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) by number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
To Receive

302 Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), A + Ax demonstrated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit across IMDC risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor) vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. Here we report efficacy of A + Ax vs S by number of IMDC risk factors (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4-6) and target tumor sites (1, 2, 3, and ≥4) at baseline from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk + Ax 5 mg orally twice daily or S 50 mg orally once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). PFS and ORR per independent central review (RECIST 1.1) and OS were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (Jan 2019), median (m) follow-up for OS and PFS was 19.3 vs 19.2 mo and 16.8 vs 15.2 mo for the A + Ax vs S arm, respectively. The table shows OS, PFS, and ORR by number of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across subgroups. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across the number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in aRCC. OS was still immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 . [Table: see text]

Efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 66-66
Author(s):  
Ziad Bakouny ◽  
Sarah Abou Alaiwi ◽  
Amin Nassar ◽  
John A. Steinharter ◽  
Xiao X. Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Logistic Regressions

66 Background: Patients with mRCC with S/R components tend to have a poor prognosis with few therapeutic options available. Recent data suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies may be especially effective for these patients. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of ICI-based therapies in patients with S/R mRCC. Methods: We retrospectively assessed objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) & overall survival (OS) of patients with S/R mRCC treated at our institution with first-line ICI-based therapies and compared these to those of patients treated with first-line non-ICI-based therapies. Univariable and multivariable (adjusted for IMDC group) Cox and logistic regressions were performed. Results: 92 patients (70 S, 9 R, and 13 S&R) patients were included, of which 74 with a clear-cell component. For all patients (regardless of therapy), 74 (80.4%) patients experienced a PFS event (progression or death) and 52 (56.5%) died at 25.3 months (m) median follow-up. Overall median PFS was 5.3 m (95% CI= 3.4–7.2) and 24 m OS rate was 39.5% (27.4–51.7). Out of 78 patients in whom response was evaluable, ORR was 30.8% (20.4–41.2). Patients treated with ICI-based therapies had significantly better ORR, PFS, and OS on multivariable analysis (table). Conclusions: mRCC patients with S/R components have significantly better ORR, PFS, and OS with first-line ICI-based compared to non-ICI-based therapies. These data support the use of ICI-based therapies for patients with S/R mRCC. [Table: see text]

Nivolumab (NIVO) + low-dose ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) therapy in microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Two-year clinical update.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4040-4040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Vittorina Zagonel ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
M. Luisa Limon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Grade 3

4040 Background: In the phase 2 CheckMate 142 trial, NIVO + low-dose IPI had robust, durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated as 1L therapy for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (median follow-up 13.8 months [mo; range, 9–19]; Lenz et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29:LBA18). Longer follow-up is presented here. Methods: Patients (pts) with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC and no prior treatment for metastatic disease received NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + low-dose IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W until disease progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed (INV) objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Results: In 45 pts with median follow-up of 29.0 mo, ORR (95% CI) increased to 69% (53–82) (Table) from 60% (44.3–74.3); complete response (CR) rate increased to 13% from 7%. The concordance rate of INV and blinded independent central review was 89%. Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached (Table). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached, and 24-mo rates were 74% and 79%, respectively (Table). Nineteen pts discontinued study treatment without subsequent therapy. An analysis of tumor response post discontinuation will be presented. Ten (22%) pts had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 3 (7%) had grade 3–4 TRAEs leading to discontinuation. Conclusions: NIVO + low-dose IPI continued to show robust, durable clinical benefit with a deepening of response, and was well tolerated with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up. NIVO + low-dose IPI may represent a new 1L therapy option for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NTC02060188 . [Table: see text]

Efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy versus chemotherapy for PD-L1–positive (CPS ≥10) advanced G/GEJ cancer in the phase II KEYNOTE-059 (cohort 1) and phase III KEYNOTE-061 and KEYNOTE-062 studies.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 427-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zev A. Wainberg ◽  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Kei Muro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Durable Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Positive Score ◽  
Combined Positive Score

427 Background: Pts with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer received pembro monotherapy (200 mg Q3W) 3L+ in cohort 1 of KEYNOTE-059 (NCT02335411), 2L in KEYNOTE-061 (NCT02370498), or 1L in KEYNOTE-062 (NCT02494583). We present efficacy data for patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 tumors in these trials. Methods: In study 059, 46 pts in cohort 1 with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro. In study 061, 108 pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=53) or chemotherapy (chemo; n=55). In study 062, 182 pts with CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=92) or placebo + chemo (n=90). Efficacy end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). Results: Median follow-up in study 059 was 5.6 mo. Median OS with pembro was 7.9 mo (95% CI, 5.8-11.1), and 12-mo OS was 32.6%. PFS at 6 mo was 17.4%, ORR was 17.4%, and median DOR was 20.9 mo (2.8+ to 34.9+). In study 061, after a median follow-up of 8.8 mo, pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 10.4 vs 8.0 mo; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02); 12-mo OS was 45.3% for pembro and 23.6% for chemo. Median PFS was 2.7 mo for pembro and 3.4 mo for chemo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33). ORR was 24.5% vs 9.1%, and median DOR was NR (4.1-26.0+) and 6.9 mo (2.6-6.9) for pembro vs chemo. In study 062, median follow-up was 17.4 mo for pembro and 10.8 mo for chemo. Pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 17.4 vs 10.8 mo; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97); 12-mo OS was 56.5% vs 46.7%. Median PFS was 2.9 mo vs 6.1 mo (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.79-1.49). ORR was 25.0% vs 37.8%, and median DOR was 19.3 mo (1.4+ to 33.6+) vs 6.8 mo (1.5+ to 30.4+) for pembro vs chemo, respectively. Conclusions: Collectively, these data indicate that 1L, 2L, and 3L+ pembro monotherapy showed clinically meaningful efficacy in CPS ≥10, with a more durable response than chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583. [Table: see text]

Results of a phase II study of capecitabine-based doublets in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e11538-e11538
Author(s):  
Ying Fan ◽  
Binghe Xu ◽  
Yuqian Liao ◽  
Fei Ma ◽  
Peng Yuan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

e11538 Background: It is extremely important to identify proper cytotoxic agents for TNBC which had limited choices except chemotherapy. Capecitabine are well established as a major chemotherapeutic agent in metastatic setting. The efficacy of capecitabine-based chemotherapy has not been prospectively studied in TNBC and data remains scant. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the treatment of metastatic TNBC. Methods: Eligible metastatic TNBC women with measurable diseases were recruited to receive either TX regimen (docetaxel 75mg/m2 iv d1 plus capecitabine 1000mg/m2 bid, d1-14,q3w) or NX regimen (vinorelbine 25mg/m2 iv d1, 8 plus capecitabine 1000mg/m2 bid, d1-14, q3w) at the discretion of physicians for up to 6 cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate and secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). Results: 45 mTNBC patients, 27 in TX and 18 in NX were recruited, mostly (73.3%) as 1st line and the remaining as the 2nd line. The total objective response rate was 20.0% and clinical benefit rate was 62.2%. After a median follow-up of 28 months, PFS was 5.2 months (95%CI, 4.1-6.3mons) and OS was 18.2months (95%CI, 8.7-27.7mons). Almost half of the patients (22/45) progressed during treatment or within one month of the treatment discontinuation. PFS was significantly longer if patients got CR/PR (9.6 vs 4.3mons, P=0.015). When comparing two doublets, the response rate was numerically but not statistically lower in TX group than in NX group (14.8% vs 27.8%, P=0.449). Similarly, no difference was found in either PFS (4.9 vs 5.2 mons, P=0.483) or OS (21.5 vs 18.3 mons, P=0.964) between two regimens. Conclusions: Although the overall survival seems to be reasonable, efficacy of capecitabine-contained TX or NX regimen was relatively poor in terms of tumor remission and progression free survival in mTNBC patients, suggesting capecitabine may have limited potency in this subtype. These two combinations may be considered to be acceptable but may not be recommended as prior choice for mTNBC patients.

Phase I study of irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) with sunitinib for advanced gastroesophageal cancers (EGC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15569-e15569
Author(s):  
Sarbajit Mukherjee ◽  
Christos Fountzilas ◽  
Patrick McKay Boland ◽  
Kristopher Attwood ◽  
Wei Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Free Survival

e15569 Background: Sunitinib (S) is a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against VEGFR, PDGRF, KIT, FLT-3, and RET. S is synergistic with chemotherapy in preclinical models. We hypothesized that S+FOLFIRI combination will have increased efficacy in advanced EGC. Methods: This was a phase I study for patients with advanced chemo naïve EGC. Dose escalation used a standard 3+3 design. The primary objective was to determine the tolerability and safety of S+FOLFIRI. Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Twenty-three patients participated in the study (Male 78%, Female 22%). Median age was 60 (Range: 37-77) years. Median follow up time was 67.5 (95% CI: 58.9, 76) months. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia (78%; G3/4: 43%), nausea (74%; G3/4:13%), diarrhea (65%; G3/4: 4%), vomiting (61%, G3/4: 9%) lymphopenia (52%; G3/4: 13%) and fatigue (52%; G3/4:17%).Two dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were noted each at dose level (DL) 1 and 1A, one at DL 1B and 3 at DL 2 (Table 1). Maximum tolerated dose was determined at DL 1B. At the time of data reporting 21 patients had died. Two patients came off the study per investigator request. All patients were evaluated for efficacy. The median OS and PFS were 12.4 (95% CI: 8.9, 16.5) months and 6.2 (95% CI: 3.4, 13.5) months, respectively. Conclusions: S+FOLFIRI was reasonably tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and signs of clinical activity in patients with advanced EGC. This study was supported by a research grant from Pfizer, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00524186. [Table: see text]

Trecc: Re-challenge therapy with anti-EGFR in metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 683-683
Author(s):  
Amanda Karani ◽  
Tiago Felismino ◽  
Lara Azevedo Diniz ◽  
Mariana Petaccia Macedo ◽  
Larissa Machado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Colorectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Free Interval

683 Background: Anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy (CT) promotes high response rates (RR) and median overall survival (OS) surpasses 30 months in RASwt/BRAFwt mCRC. After disease progression (PD), resistance mechanisms have been described. The aim of our study was to evaluate efficacy of anti-EGFR re-challenge (TRECC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients (pts) with mCRC. All pts had received anti-EGFR plus CT and were discontinued for different reasons. During the treatment, there was re-challenge with an anti-EGFR + CT. We aimed to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after re-challenge and prognostic factors associated with PFS. Results: Sixty eight pts met the study criteria. Median follow-up after re-challenge was 39.3m. Discontinuation after first exposure was 25% due to PD; 75% for other reasons. Median anti-EGFR free interval was 10.5m. At re-challenge, main CT regime was: FOLFIRI 58.8%, Cetuximab and Panitumumab were used in 59 and 9 pts respectively. mPFS after re-challenge was 6.6m; mOS was 24.4m. Objective response rate (CR + PR) at re-challenge was 42.6%. In an univariate analysis, adverse prognostic factors related to PFS were: absence of objective response at 1st EGFR exposure (HR 2.12, CI:1.20-3.74 p = 0.009); PD as reason for 1st discontinuation (HR 3.44, CI:1.88-6.29 p < 0.0001); re-challenge at fourth or later lines (HR 2,51, CI:1.49-4.23 p = 0.001); panitumumab use (HR 2.26 CI:1.18-5.54 p = 0.017). In a multivariate model, only PD as reason for 1st discontinuation remained statistically significant (HR = 2.63, CI:1.14-6.03 p = 0.022). mPFS was 3.3m and 8.4m and mOS was 7,5m and 33,4m in patients with PD as reason for 1st discontinuation and other reasons respectively. Conclusions: Re-challenge therapy is commonly used due to paucity of effective lines of treament for mCRC. In our analysis, pts that stopped 1st anti-EGFR therapy due to PD have shorter survival, suggesting these pts do not benefit from TRECC. However, interruption due to treatment holiday after PR/CR resulted in longer PFS. In conclusion, for a selected group of pts, TRECC could be considered a strategy of treatment. Due to the limited number of pts, our data should be evaluated in a prospective cohort of patients.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 867-875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celeste Lebbé ◽  
Nicolas Meyer ◽  
Laurent Mortier ◽  
Ivan Marquez-Rodas ◽  
Caroline Robert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group. CONCLUSION The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document